If the previous schedule is any indication, they are now almost two months overdue. I’m not implying any nefarious motives whatsoever, but I’m wondering why it is overdue. Below is the update list. Sometimes a nudge helps. So let’s call this article a friendly nudge. I sent a query from their web page asking why, and hope to hear back soon.

thanks! i follow this graph and i was wondering the same thing. Unfortunately i have the feeling that since the data is becoming more politically incorrect that delayed sea height data may be delayed so that every effort may made to try to show increase not decrease.

Yes, I can hardly wait. Now that GATA has been down sea-level rise deceleration is further evidence it is cooling, not warming. Last March, we had the “hottest March evah” and now it is cooling. Hmmmm. Not looking too good for the man-made CO2 is overheating the planet theory.

What are they going to do when a straight line no longer fits the data?
Surely nature wouldn’t dare show off some curves!

If you download the data from http://sealevel.colorado.edu/results.php and plot the Jason and Topex data separately, you get two very different trendlines. Jason from 2002 until late 2010 shows much less than 3.1mm p.a. – it’s more like 2.5mm p.a.

The AMSU satellite temperature site also quit posting its daily updates for all altitudes in mid-December, 2010. Although it resumed posting the daily, 14,000 foot altitude temperature plot in early 2011. All other channels continue to report a data problem and “…processing suspended until resolved.” They’ve never answered my queries about the nature of the problem. Could this satellite problem be related to the UC level data shutdown?

How do you measure sea level using satellites? It makes sense to measure temperature using satellites as you can look at the spectrum emitted. But sea level doesn’t seem to be something amenable to satellite measurement.

I’m especially curious about how the measurement can be to such a tight tolerance.

“Maximum temperatures nationally were the coldest on record with a national anomaly of -2.19°C. Most of Australia recorded below average mean maxima with parts of the north and south of the country recording their coldest March on record” this is from http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/month/aus/summary.shtml

At 3.1 mm since 1994 to 2010 that would make a rise of something like 49mm. Running that back to 1964, when I started mooring a boat here in the Mediterranean sea, we would be looking at something like 142mm.

Credible “homogenization” takes time. Then there is the vetting of the crew to destroy the actual readings and to estimate impossible to verify readings from Baja, Tierra del fuego. South point Hawaii, and the Faroe Islands. All of which will prove a precipitous rise in sea level unobservable to anyone else.

Anthony, here are the updated figures – you may be using a redundant site.

A little scary as you can see ‘this new improved version’ shows a greater rate of sea level rise than previously, but most important and ominously it is clearly obvious a whole heap of data points on the chart have been/changed/manipulated/strangled.

I too have been watching that graph for months, waiting for an update. Last data point seems to be back in Sept/Oct time frame. Seeing that the recent El Nino correlated with a nice spike in the sea level and we currently are going thru a La Nina I suspect they do not want to show the data till the La Nina is gone. Problem is, if that is the case, and the sea level does not bounce back up to or near their black line, they are making their problem worse by delaying. How are they going to explain not showing the sea level change for 6 months or longer and when it finally comes out and shows a significant loss… whoa.

Here is another plot of sea level rise from 1993 to end 2010 I saved from a previous thread here http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html
So there is no reason why the University of Colerado graph has not been updated. The base information is obviously available and since other plots show a fall since mid 2010 it would look strange if UC presented something entirely different. They must have technical problems, but why do they not say so?

Given that the UC data graph is all Jason-1 data… I think the fact that Jason-1 has gone wildly negative since mid 2010 (as shown by the previous link) that pretty much explains why they havent updated it. They may be trying to come up with a valid reason how they can “hide the decline” by splicing in the Jason-2 data from mid 2010 and not showing (or deleting) the Jason-1 data.

Well it looks like I was wrong in assuming that they are only using Jason-1 data at UC so my previous post was incorrect. Based on the release notes they started adding in Jason-2 data. Wonder why they didn’t change the color of the squares or just add another series of points to the graph instead of averaging them (Im assuming that is what was done)?

The data is in, they can’t believe sea levels could possibly fall. The data must be wrong. They’ve commissioned a brand new metre rule and will venture to the beach as soon as the radiation threat from Japan subsides. Elf n safety you know.

Back in the days I used to watch the HADCRUT temperature series (before climategate), there certainly was a correlation between temperature and date of release. I think it was about 1wk early for a 0.1C rise and of course 1wk late for a drop.

It was just all indicative of an organisation that had a completely overwhelmingly biased view on the results … that and the way you’d know a particularly low result was coming out, by the media storm they created to stoke up the commitment of the media to the warming hype … before releasing the fact – very quietly – that it was cooling.

@petermiller
I overlaid the dec 2010 graph from the UC on top of the current one from http://crozon.colorado.edu/ as you suggested and yes indeed it does definitely appear to me as well that the prior data has been adjusted significantly to exaggerate the sea level rise. It looks almost like a linear adjustment to the data points, no adjustment in 1993 and ending with about a 5mm adjustment upward in 2010.

The new graph seems visually at least quite different to the old one, but I can’t find notes about the changes. (It would be interesting to plot one vs the other). Also, on the new chart, the smoothed line has been below the linear trend for about the last 4 years. Which makes it odd that the new chart has a slope of 3.2 mm/yr and the old has 3.1 mm/yr.

If you look at the calibration page…

… you see that the JASON calibration has recently fallen off a cliff. After years of a small to medium positive calibration, it now has a large negative calibration. How this is measured I’m not clear, nor what consequences it has for the MSL estimation.

I sent an email to the folks up at CU asking when the website would be updated. This was on Feb 22, 2011. I received the following reply on Feb 23, 2011:

Jack,

Thanks for your inquiry about the Sea Level Change Research web site
(http://sealevel.colorado.edu). I work with Professor Nerem at CU, and
he forwarded to me your message. Almost all of the 2010 data are
already on the site, but 2011 data will begin to be added after the
data are released by NASA/CNES. We have been updating the sea level
data approximately bimonthly (every two months). The altimeter data
are released by NASA/CNES as a 10-day group of files corresponding to
the satellite track repeat cycle (10 days). There is also a two-month
delay between the time the data are collected on the satellite to
their final product generation (known as a final geophysical data
record (GDR)). We use these final GDR products in the global mean sea
level estimates. If possible, we are planning to shorten the time
between our global mean sea level updates.

We are currently reworking the web site, and a new feature will be RSS
and email subscriptions to our updates. I will send an email to you
when these features are ready.

It simply amazing… the last UC graph from 2010 (seasonal signals removed) gives a 3.0mm per year rise since 1993. The UC data that was shown at http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLevelRise/slr/slr_sla_gbl_free_txj1j2_90.png which includes the 2011 sea level data results in a rise of 2.9mm per year since 1993 (seasonal signals removed).
The data now shown at UC shows an average rise of 3.2mm per year since 1993 (seasonal signals removed), suggesting that there has been a huge increase in sea level rise in the past 6 months which is clearly not the case. What is wrong with this picture?

Why expect a steady sea level?
Is there ANY skilled geologist that would even think of stable sea level in a world with tectonic plate movements?
Is there a measurement of land level change made?
I bet that one would be showing much larger changes.

The Med is clearly connected to the world ocean, but has not got much in the way of tides, which would seem to help to even out sea level on a daily basis and make altimeter readings more uniform. However, the seasonal difference would still be problematic. The level of the Med is lower than the world ocean in summer because of high evaporation. I am not certain, but I would guess that the level of the Med is higher in winter because of inflow from rivers and evaporation that is lower than in summer.
So data from the Med would need to be smoothed in a different way from oceanic data.

I guess Jørgen F means that DMI have not observed any change to sea levels around Denmark as the graph shows. This confirms my suspicion that the sea levels have not changed. Every time I go back to my Danish home town I have seen no change to sea levels in 60 years.

Geoff Sharpsays:
April 6, 2011 at 10:08 pm
Do any other institutions monitor sea levels, or perhaps we can get the raw data and plot ourselves.

The French seem to be a bit more up to date. AVISO (Archivage, Validation et Interprétation des données des Satellites Océanographiques) is a joint project of CNES (Centre National d’Études Spatiales – French equivalent of NASA) and CLS (Collecte Localisation Satellites). They have data up to 2011.038337 (January 14, 2011) while the University of Colorado at Boulder Sea level change site only has it up to 2010.7415 (September 28, 2010).

The two datasets are not directly comparable as they use different adjustments and these are poorly documented at both sites.

For the life of me, I cannot get 3.1 or the new (higher even though it’s still going down?) value of 3.2 mm / year. Eyeball and calculator give me 2.8 or 2.9, even on the black line. Actual data points from start to finish give me 2.6 mm / year.

He considered this minor! Should we not expect sea level to rebound by at least 1,000 mm in 300 years? Should we consider this a minor rise? Why not?

Why should sea level remain at a point convenient for people who want to locate cities near the sea coasts?

From the abstract, “…. The Holocene highstand reached nearly 3 m above LTL at 7.3 ka, remained stable for approximately 1.7 kyr and was followed by a relative sea level fall. Between 5.2 and 4.2 ka, there was a second pulse of relative sea level rise of a few metres leading to a fresh spurt in coral growth along the northern coast of Mandapam and Rameswaram [east coast of India]. This was nearly contemporaneous with fresh melting of ice sheets of Antarctica. The Little Ice Age (LIA) witnessed a minor (>1 m) relative sea level fall along this coast, resulting in rapid diagenetic hardening and infiltration of goethite into the emerged foreshore sand at Karikovil and its neighbourhood. This was followed by a rise of the sea level during the last few centuries.”

For non-scientists, the Holocene is roughly the last 10,000 years. Sea level has risen about 120-140 metres (450 feet), mainly from glacier meltwater entering the world ocean but also from thermal expansion of water.

My HADCRAP computer model indicates a sea level decline is to be expected as a result of over-fishing and the Gorian decline in polar bear numbers due to global warming. The decline of the polar bear has a twofold effect: less direct displacement of sea water due to declining numbers of polar bears in the water; and less indirect displacement due to less weight on floating sea ice.

Frank White: If the estimate of ~1 meter sea level drop during the LIA is correct, one really has to wonder what all the fuss is about – we’ve only regained 20-30 % of that so far! And even with 3mm/year, we’ll need another 250 years for the remaining, i.e. a total of about 550 years of rising sea levels – that’s probably a longer timeframe than the preceding period of dropping sea levels, i.e. a slower rate.

Aviso was put in charge in calibrating the new Jason2 satellite and, subsequent to that being completed, they have continued to be one of the main operators of the data and the satellites.

All of the maps, time series and data into January 2011 can be found here. They have also included data from the European satellite – Envisat – which is recording sea level rise of only 1.2 mm/yr (and a decline of 1.0 mm in 2010).

The water must be going SOMEWHERE! The warming is probably evaporating it, so that it’s now lurking somewhere in the atmosphere waiting to dump floods of water and excessive snow which will then melt and cause even more floods.

I have personally spoken to the people at Boulder, and they have informed me that the hold up is due to some changes in staff. They have recently hired Dr James Hansen to perform some minor data adjustments to correct for previous errors, and Dr Michael Mann to write the new graphing function using more modern statistical methods.

Are we not making the mistake of enlarging a section of data to such an extent that we can no longer see perspective and context? If we had ALL the data instead of proxy reconstructions, there would be lots of little ups and downs in millennium data. These changes would be hardly visible to the naked eye on a graph and indeed no one would care, unless we chose a small section and enlarged it, then tossed the rest of the data away (as in, “Sorry, we didn’t keep the raw data”). We are now at the stage of panic that watching grass grow gets our knickers in a twist.

So, the best they can do is try to convince us a 3 to 4 mm rise per year will be the end of the world as we know it? Are there error bars on their estimates? I didn’t look too closely at the data. These fear mongers should look more closely at the relative risks between a 4 mm/yr rise in sea level and a 4 to 20 meters tsunami that just hit Japan. Just how many lives have been lost in the last century due to this 4mm/yr rise in sea level anyway?
Sorry for the rant.

??? Jaymam’s blink chart looks different then Bushy’s, especially the seasonal removed part. How many different versions are there? I prefer the seasonal chart as then January to January is visible. Everything may be fine, but if there is radical changes, not thourghly and logically explained, then perhaps a FOI request will be in order if the U of C is subject to such a request.

“Are we not making the mistake of enlarging a section of data to such an extent that we can no longer see perspective and context?”

Sure, but we must keep in mind that f.ex Rahmstorf predicts more than a meter sea level rise the next 90 years – so the level will have to skyrocket soon if he is going to be right. But we are seeing the opposite – deceleration. It must be a travesty to Rahmstorf each time the real numbers come out :)

Finally a version showing all of 2010, but there are so many versions, it is getting very confusing. Still an impressive drop there, all the way back to 2004 level, as predicted by some sceptics. But this didn’t show up in the 2011 release 1 that was up for a while. That one had an increase of 0.1 over “2010 release 5″. They are not exactly going out of their way to make their science understandable and user friendly.

Maybe it is time for a clarifying/educational post on sea level and its different representations….?

I look at the UofC site every day to see if there has been an update. It seems to me that the last data on the chart is from June or July of 2010. This is April of the following year! Like Anthony, I have not concluded anything nefarious, but if a skeptic site of data had this type of delaly, the mainstream media would be screaming and suggesting scandal & manipulation.

I saved copies of the 2011 release 1 and a copy of the 2010 release 5 and overlaid them. In the 2011v1 they added a nearly linear rise of 5mm starting in 1993 and ending in 2010 to the 2011v1 data graph which explains why the trend increased from 3.0mm/yr from 2010v5 to 3.2mm/yr in 2011v1.
Also really strange why the 2011v1 doesn’t agree at all with http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLevelRise/slr/slr_sla_gbl_free_txj1j2_90.png

as I said on another thread recently (and I am a geologist) – measuring sea level and relating it to AGW or just plain ‘warming’ requires an awful lot of other data. Sub-sea volcanic activity, changes in water temp and density, salinity, precipitation, glacial outflow, sediment deposition (e.g at river deltas), removal of groundwater by man (which then usually ends up in the sea!), air temperature, evapotranspiration rates, oscillatory currents, atmospheric humidity (water content), etc, etflippincetera – will all contribute to sea level variation in some way shape or form.
I fail to see how any direct measurement of sea level is necessarily an indication of actual sea volume change as many other factors can combine to cause the change – and in particular to your geological point – yes, I agree – how do you know that the seawater volume is changing (lets assume all other temp/density parameters are constant) if you do not actually know if the receptacle (i.e. the ocean basins) that are holding said seawater are probably changing? Then, if you add in the fact of isostatic rebound, plate tectonic movements, etc, we are not talking about a fixed ‘receptacle’!

If you take the earth as a closed system – and consider the water cycle, with water in given ‘zones’ – the ‘placement’ of the earths water can and will vary, with water temporarily in higher or lower amounts within the ocean zone, ground zone and air zone. A relatively minor change (e.g. winter to summer!) in any number of conditions can alter this ‘balance’ (no, I don’t think it is ever in balance, its just a figure of speech) with apparent changes in the measured ‘zones’. Logically, if you have a few zillion cubic kilometres of seawater volume, just changing the salinity, temperature or density by a tiny ‘smidge’ will cause a significant actual volumetric change but the actual ‘amount’ of seawater hasn’t changed at all!

@rbateman
Me thinks you are deluding yourself if you don’t think people with a “prove it to me with data point of view” aren’t going to compare recently released data to the previously released to make sure everything is consistent and there is no “funny business or hide-the-decline” going on.

Ocean life in most locations has adapted to and tolerates two high and two low tides each day generally around 5-6 ft. in height. (even up to 50+ ft in the Bay of Fundy).

A few millimeters per year change sea level is clearly not a problem. Shore life already has adapted to regular variations in the pulsing seas of much greater variation than a few millimeters here or there. This extra water is insignificant in the big picture and in the daily tidal flux.

It’s amazing this few millimeters is being milked by CAGWarmers like a cash cow the way that it is…. ?got milk?…. yeah, it’s also “got gullibles”… lots of “gullibles”.

Why do all the Measurements all the way back to 1990 appear to be about 5mm higher then the Measurements were a few days ago,?

Have the people looking at the data been wrong for 19 ½ years?
Do they know what they are doing?
It there some other reason that might explain a 5mm rise in sea level that had gone unnoticed for 20 years?

I was hoping they would use the data since July 2010 to extend the graph, rather then using the data since July 2010 to change the past.

Those people doing the work for the last 19 1/2 years age must be feeling pretty dumb right about now. Good thing the new people caught their predecessor’s incompetent error.

I live on an Island off the coast of Maine, USA. I Captain a passenger ferry to the Mainland and back 10 times a day from a granite stone pier built in the late 1700s. If they were to measure sea level rise here, in inches, it would be about 2?? in 200 years?? should I believe them or my lying eyes? this does not even begin to take into account that we dredge about every 10 to 15 years just to keep it deep enough to get our boats into the pier.

Anthony;
Given the changes between the ‘current’ version of the historical record and the historical version of the historical record for this graph I think that it would be helpful if the use of this graph on the ENSO and Oceans reference pages included a blink comparison between the graph as it appeared yesterday and whatever theses people settle on as the ‘new and improved’ graph.

The previous graph had Reverse Barometer adjustment as well as Seasonal applied. New one has no Reverse Barometer and shows trend as 3.2+/-0.4 mm…

This would probably go down to ~2.9+/-0.4mm with Reverse Barometer applied – perhaps they made an oversight?

I’m not sure the data set is much use anyway as they seem to make adjustments and calibration changes each time they publish the data and the joins between Topex – Jason1 – Jason2 are subject to a degree of arbitrariness I think. The algorithms used when producing the final model are also based on assumptions about how the system works and ‘confirmation bias’ can easily creep in.

Interesting that it looks like the NOAA trend has had the Reverse Barometer adjustment…

If we can assume that Anthony’s link is one that he has used for a long time, and that it is not normal practice for the new graph to have a new address (see Peter Miller @11.26, April 6, 2011), then one might conclude that Colorado is hiding the results.

Many of us, and no doubt many teachers and others of influence, have saved links that we use to enable us to regularly look at graphs, but without always checking that the graph is up to date.

The UK Met Office is guilty of a similar slight of hand with its (HadCRUT3 global temperature graphs). At first sight everything looks fine with temperatures rising nicely, but a close look at the scale reveals a December 2009 cut-off. If you copy and paste the graph into some other document, the lack of warming will suddenly be revealed.

The sea level in the paleo record geologically abruptly increases and decreases 10m to 15m. (The paper I linked to conclusion concerning cause is incorrect.) Base on what has happened before sea level will drop. The change is driven by the sun. There are a set of solar anomalies and astronomical anomalies that are explained by the mechanism. The solar effect is what is causing satellite measurement of ocean level to not agree with direct measurement using tidal gauges. I would expect the satellite estimate of ice sheet mass will show an anomalous increase in mass based on how the satellite’s motion over the ice sheets will change.

The same solar mechanism is causing the increase in volcanic activity and earthquakes.

“… the pre-Last Glacial Maximum (pre-LGM) is characterized by substantial fluctuations in sea level of 10 to 15 m about every 6000 years. The timing of these rapid change events during oxygen isotope stage 3 (OIS-3) apparently coincides with Heinrich ice-rafting events recorded in North Atlantic sediments (61), which suggest that they reflect major ice discharges from continent-based or shelf grounded ice sheets (62). Of note is that sea level falls during this period occur in similarly short time intervals and the ice accumulation also appears to have been a rapid process (39).

The UK Met Office is guilty of a similar slight of hand with its (HadCRUT3 global temperature graphs). At first sight everything looks fine with temperatures rising nicely, but a close look at the scale reveals a December 2009 cut-off. If you copy and paste the graph into some other document, the lack of warming will suddenly be revealed.

Unreal ! Well spotted. If you right-click and open the image on it’s own you see the Inconvenitent Truth !

You can see a similar “trick” in their climate guide. They show a temperature graph based on 2005 data ( aclaimedly one they produced for AR4). Because of smoothing windows the line stops at 2000.

Now if they’d done that once, a charitable mind may be ready to give the the benefit of the doubt and think it was an error.

Doing it twice in different ways with almost identical cut-off year makes it look just a little intentional .

The new data shows sea level is oscillating down. Let’s keep watching the data. If it continues to oscillate down someone will write a paper to try explain what is observed.

As noted in this paper, the 20th century global aggregate sea level changes cannot be physically explained based on mass balance (ice sheets and glaciers melting) or based on expansion due to warming. The oceans are no longer warming.

What is observed is the volume of the ocean is changing rather than the mass of the ocean. Some other variable/forcing function is causing the ocean to expand and contract (i.e. Not temperature and not mass. Hint the ocean level changes track the solar cycle however the tracking can also not be explained by solar forcing of planetary temperature. What we are observing now is a larger effect that is a consequence of the abrupt change in solar cycle 24.)

“The rate of twentieth-century global sea level rise and its causes are the subjects of intense controversy1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Most direct estimates from tide gauges give 1.5–2.0 mm yr-1, whereas indirect estimates based on the two processes responsible for global sea level rise, namely mass and volume change, fall far below this range. Estimates of the volume increase due to ocean warming give a rate of about 0.5 mm yr-1 (ref. 8) and the rate due to mass increase, primarily from the melting of continental ice, is thought to be even smaller. Therefore, either the tide gauge estimates are too high, as has been suggested recently6, or one (or both) of the mass and volume estimates is too low. Here we present an analysis of sea level measurements at tide gauges combined with observations of temperature and salinity in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans close to the gauges. We find that gauge-determined rates of sea level rise, which encompass both mass and volume changes, are two to three times higher than the rates due to volume change derived from temperature and salinity data.”

In the last 5000 years, global mean sea level has been dominated by the redistribution of water masses over the globe. In the last 300 years, sea level has been oscillation close to the present with peak rates in the period 1890–1930. Between 1930 and 1950, sea fell. The late 20th century lack any sign of acceleration. Satellite altimetry indicates virtually no changes in the last decade. Therefore, observationally based predictions of future sea level in the year 2100 will give a value of + 10 +/- 10 cm (or +5 +/-15 cm), by this discarding model outputs by IPCC as well as global loading models. This implies that there is no fear of any massive future flooding as claimed in most global warming scenarios.”

“Fig. 2. Sea level changes in mm as recorded by TOPEX/POSEIDON between October 1992 and April 2000: raw data before any filtering or sliding mean average. The variability is high, in the order of +/- 5– 10 mm. From 1993 to 1996, no trend is recorded, just a noisy record around zero. In 1997, something happens. High-amplitude oscillations are recorded; a rapid rise in early 1997 at a rate in the order of 2.5 mm/year, followed by a rapid fall in late 1997 and early 1998 at a rate in the order of 1.5 mm/year, and finally, in late 1998 and 1999, a noisy record with unclear trends. The new factor introduced in 1997 and responsible for the high-amplitude oscillations, no doubt, is the global ENSO event, implying rapid redistribution of oceanic water masses (characteristic for mode III in Table 1). This means that this data set does not record any general trend (rising or falling) in sea level, just variability around zero plus the temporary ENSO perturbations.”

which is exactly what I was concerned about. I rather expect CO2 levels to track sea level rise. Now if the rise in both is slowing significantly, it really is the end of the current incarnation of AGW and the script needs to be rewritten. Well, Team, this is what you need:

“Because of the unusual solar minimum, things have slowed down… a little… with sea level rise and CO2 rise. However, this in no way invalidates the robust longterm projection, that manmade emissions will continue to make the climate warmer blah blah.”

Looking back in time at their main page the graphic they present changes as they add more data on the right side… however they seem to stop plotting peak data points on a number of the graphs. I don’t know if that is just their plotting program settings or if it is an attempt of some form of manipulation, it is curious though. A detailed analysis should be done to see if the graphs have other hints of data manipulations of earlier data in later graphs. If they do they better have damned good and already well documented reasons for such mannipulations.

Also they don’t expand the size of the bit map at all, you think as they added data they’d make the bit map bigger but they don’t. The effect is that the slope of the sea level rise steepens. I find that this practice in climate science to be deceptive. In presenting information to humans you must keep the graph consistent in scale. Altering the x-axis scale as you add data will lead to misconceptions about the data. I’m surprised that scientists don’t know this, or maybe they do and take advantage of it. Clearly they should provide a version with the same scale if they wish to be honest and have scientific integrity.

A blink comparison movie of four graphs from sealevel.colorado.edu to visually compare the changes in plotting and data over approximately six years.

The four graphs are from 20040215, 20041223, 20060930, and 20100923.

The video has a HD 720p quality for best viewing.

Looking back in time at the sealevel.colorado.edu main page the graphic they present changes as they add more data on the right side… however they seem to stop plotting peak data points on a number of the graphs. I don’t know if that is just their plotting program settings or if it is an attempt of some form of manipulation, it is curious though. A detailed analysis should be done to see if the graphs have other hints of data manipulations of earlier data in later graphs. If they do they better have damned good and already well documented reasons for such mannipulations.

Also they don’t expand the size of the bit map at all, you think as they added data they’d make the bit map wider but they don’t. The effect is that the slope of the sea level rise steepens. I find that this practice in climate science to be deceptive. In presenting information to humans you must keep the graph consistent in scale. Altering the x-axis scale as you add data will lead to misconceptions about the data. I’m surprised that scientists don’t know this, or maybe they do and take advantage of it. Clearly they should provide a version with the same scale if they wish to be honest and have scientific integrity.